Future of Spectrum

- This inlcudes a number of slides

Slides from Anton O’ Gara -
 spectrum allocation
 Radio spectrum is a finite public resource
 Regulated using a command and control
structure

 Traditionally when you get spectrum you

keep it forever.
 3G licenses (of course in some of these cases
you can’t get rid of it fast enough)
 TV broadcasters etc.
 wireless everywhere ..
an enormous growth in wireless communications
over the past two decades and we now live in a
world where there are ever-increasing numbers
of wireless communication devices in operation.
=> an increase in demand for spectrum.
 The Radio Spectrum
 As technology has progressed, the range of
usable bands has increased

 However, the range of applications and

number of users has increased at a much
higher rate

 This has led to an artificial scarcity of

spectrum
 The Radio Spectrum
“…there have been four core assumptions underlying
spectrum policy:
1. unregulated radio interference will lead to chaos;
2. spectrum is scarce;
3. government command and control of the scarce
spectrum resource is the only way chaos can be
avoided; and
4. the public interest centers on government choosing
the highest and best use of the spectrum.
Todays environment has strained these assumptions to
the breaking point.”

- FCC Chairman, Michael Powell, 2002

 The Radio Spectrum
 The main driving force behind research into
spectrum management is the alleviation of the
man made spectrum scarcity.

 Most of the spectrum has been allocated.

 Even in the licensed bands that are busy, the level of
activity often varies wildly with time and location.
 Large amounts of spectrum allocated to emergency
services.
 Good Example - Unlicensed Activity

 Licenced bands stagnate quickly, when

the spectrum is awarded people are
secure and have no incentive to change.
 In the few unlicensed bands, necessity
has driven groundbreaking research.
 Lower cost of entry into the unlicensed
bands encourages research.
 New technologies are breaking the
‘rules’
 so we can see that ..
 static allocation does not help
 looking at other technologies all innovation in
the ISM bands (license free band)
 ideas stunted / experimentation limited
 so therefore …..
the traditional ideas of network infrastructure and
ownership and the centralist model of a public carrier
network and licensed spectrum must be challenged in an
attempt to go beyond present systems and to design for the
future in an innovative manner

we need to think differently about spectrum

allocation

note: Regulations in most countries have changed little since the

1930’s.
It is possible to allocate spectrum on a range of other bases, on a non-
permanent footing with a result in increased capacity. For example
dynamic allocation on a spatial basis would allow organizations in
different regions to use the same frequencies. In time, the granularity
of space could be reduced and in the extreme examples users would
be permitted to use the same frequencies within much smaller
vicinities (e.g. on different floors of a building). Allocation on a
temporal basis would allow users access to underutilized spectrum,
effectively filling the unused gaps of available spectrum time.

Transmit power, although partly regulated today, could be made a

more effective means of allocation and would go hand in hand with
regulation by space. In summary it is clear that there are many options
for dynamic allocation of spectrum that greatly improve on the static
and permanent allocation of frequency bands that exists at present.
 Spectrum Usage
This is the measurement taken over a 24 hour period in central London, July
2004. The solid blue represents no activity, while red represents heavy
activity.
 freq 1

operator 1
operator 2
freq 1

time
Spectrum Management Today
 Spectrum Management
 The aim of spectrum management is to
ensure the optimal use of the radio
spectrum in civic and economic terms and
to ensure reasonable and fair access to
those who require it.

 Regulatory bodies recognise the need for

change
 Spectrum Management
 The Ofcom Spectrum Vision

1. Spectrum should be free of technology and usage

constraints as far as possible. Policy constraints
should only be used where they can be justified;
2. It should be simple and transparent for licence
holders to change the ownership and use of
spectrum; and
3. Rights of spectrum users should be clearly defined
and users should feel comfortable that they will not be
changed without good cause.
 Spectrum Management
 Ofcom describe the key mechanisms in
spectrum optimisation as follows:

 Trading of spectrum

 Liberalisation of spectrum use

 Aims & Advantages
 The introduction of spectrum trading offers
the following advantages:
 Improved spectral efficiency
 Greater control and responsibility for the
market
 Improved ease of access to the spectrum
 A more ‘natural’ pricing mechanism
 Increased capacity and rewards for innovation
 Aims & Advantages
 The degree to which these advantages
can be exploited will vary

 Regulators are keen to modernise the

systems

 Wary of over-liberalisation
 Issues
 Defining the set of rules to govern this
trading market is a hugely complex issue
 Standard trading unit
 Spectrum division mechanism
 Spectrum recall
 Usage measurement
 Licensee freedom
 Dissaggregation
Proposals for Spectrum Trading
 In an attempt at creating a technology neutral regulation
system, Ofcom have proposed a two tier rights system –
specific and restrictive
 The specific rights may vary across different users of the
spectrum
 License holders abide by their specific usage rights
unless they change the use of the spectrum
 When a change of use occurs they must abide by the
restrictive usage rights until they generate a new set of
specific rights with the agreement of their neighbouring
spectrum users
 The restrictive licences should be such that whatever the
original and new uses are, the neighbours to the
spectrum being traded should not suffer any additional
interference.
 Worked Example
 Broadcaster A indicates to a 3G operator that they would be willing
to trade part of their spectrum. Were this to happen, the 3G
operator would only be able to use the restrictive spectrum usage
rights. These would be too restrictive to allow the 3G operator to
provide a viable service;
 Before entering into detailed negotiation with the seller, the 3G
operator consults with the owners of the neighbouring channels,
who are broadcasters. The 3G operator reaches an agreement in
principle with them that were it to buy broadcaster A’s spectrum it
would abide by certain restrictions on siting base stations and make
compensatory payments of an agreed amount to the other
broadcasters. In return, the other broadcasters would agree on a
new specific property right which would be close to the 3GPP
specification;
 The 3G operator builds a business case based on the new specific
spectrum usage rights and compensation payments and decides on
the maximum it will pay broadcaster A for its spectrum. It then re-
enters negotiation with broadcaster A; and
 If the business case is viable, the trade proceeds.
 Motivation towards Spectrum Trading

 Worth €9bn annually in the EU

 Gives firms a strong incentive to respond

to market signals and put resources to
their best possible use.

 Frees the airwaves

Proposed Further Liberalisation
 Amount of spectrum available for license exempt
use be expanded
Proposed Further Liberalisation

Below 3GHz Above 3GHz

Market mechanisms: 27.1% 61.3%
Licence exempt: 4.2% 8.2%
Command & Control: 68.6% 30.6%
Proposed Further Liberalisation
 As well as increasing the amount of spectrum
dedicated to license exempt use, it is proposed
that licensees be allowed to sell underlay access
to it’s allocation
 This is where the licensee can grant a third party
permission to transmit on its block of spectrum,
as long as the power of the transmission
remains so low as to be indistinguishable from
noise to the licensee.
 Spectrum Trading In Practice

 Spectrum trading has been introduced to

varying degrees in several countries
including New Zealand, Australia,
Guatemala, the U.S.A. and the U.K.
 Spectrum Trading In Practice
 U.S.A. –
 The U.S.A. has a two tier leasing system in place,
allowing licensees to lease out some or all of their
spectrum for a portion of the term of their license
 Spectrum manager leasing allows the licensee to
lease spectrum without consulting the FCC, but they
retain responsibility to ensure the license conditions
are met
 De Facto transfer leasing transfers requires FCC
approval, but transfers most of the responsibilities of
compliance to the lessee
 Spectrum Trading In Practice
 Australia –
 Australia chose to divide spectrum into blocks
of frequency and area called STUs
 STUs can be combined vertically (increased
bandwidth) or horizontally (increased
coverage)
 The country was divided by a spectrum map
grid, where the cell size varied depending on
location and population level with larger cells
in rural areas.
 Spectrum Trading In Practice
 New Zealand –
 New Zealand employs a 3 tier rights system
 Management rights grant the exclusive right to
manage a nationwide band of frequencies for a fixed
term up to 20 years
 License right are then bestowed by these band
managers allowing licensees access to these
frequencies. The licenses are specific in terms of use
and location and the manager can grant licenses to
itself if it chooses.
 Apparatus licenses exist in the blocks of spectrum
where management rights have not been created.
 Spectrum Trading In Practice
 Guatemala –
 Spectrum rights in Guatemala are granted in
fully transferable and fragmentable frequency
usage titles
 Technical limitations to protect against
interference but which have no service
limitations
 All spectrum that is not assigned can be
requested
 research issues galore
 how do we divide up spectrum?
 what bandwidth granularity?
 what time period granularity?
 how do we manage the allocation / pooling?
 who gets to be broker?
 what allocation algorithms do we use?
 how do we pay for it?
 how do we measure what is available?
 how do we monitor what is going on?
 how do we design technology to be useful at wider ranges of frequencies?
 transmitters / receivers??
Enabling Technologies
Software Radio / Cognitive Radio
 software radio

a software defined radio is a radio that includes

a transmitter in which the operating parameters
of the transmitter, including the frequency range,
modulation type or maximum radiated or
conducted output power can be altered by
making a change in software without making
any hardware changes.
 Original
Signal
Tuning & RF/IF
Demodulation
Amplification Conversion

different hardware for phone, WLAN, bluetooth,

spectrum analyser etc.
 software radio, one hardware platform does it all ……

OFDM Receive
Software

FM Receive QPSK Receive

Software Software

Original
Signal
Tuning & RF/IF A/D Digital Signal
Amplification Conversion Converter Processing

it all happens in the digital domain …. in

the signal processing / software
 cognitive radio … more still
the term ‘cognitive radio’ was coined by
Mitola [Mitola1999] in 1999 to describe a
reconfigurable radio capable of choosing a
course of action based on observations of not
only the wireless channel environment, but
also based on the device user's present, past
and anticipated actions.
 a cognitive radio may include several sensors which
continuously monitor many aspects of the local
environment.

 examples of such conditions include the location of

the device, spectrum-usage restrictions in the current
location, current power reserves, anticipated user
actions and other environmental factors including the
time of day, current light level and local temperature.
 the concept of this cognitive radio system also
includes the ability to conform to spectrum etiquette.

 this means that the radio could conceivably vary its

transmitted power output level if it detects that
interference is being caused to other legitimate users,
or if local spectrum regulations that may be in service
dictate a maximum output power level.